Theagrarian debates in the State Duma are highly instructive. The speeches of
the leaders of the various parties must be gone into in greater detail, and a
thorough insight obtained into their content.

Withoutdoubt, the attitude to landed proprietorship is the gist of the agrarian
question. The peasants are fighting against landed proprietorship, trying to
obtain land for themselves. What is the attitude of the various parties to this
struggle?

TheSocial-Democrats have put forward the direct and open demand for
alienation without compensation. In his speech, Tsereteli, a
Social-Democratic
representative, forcibly revealed the falseness of the defence of landed
property “rights”, explained that it originated as plunder, showed
up
the boundless hypocrisy of the speeches on private property as an inalienable
right, and refuted the Prime Minister, who by “state interests”
understood, not the interests of the people, but the interests of that
handful of landlords with whom the state authorities are closely linked.

Addto this the proposal made by Comrade Tsereteli at the end of his speech to
relegate the question to local land committees (elected, of course, by
universal, direct, equal and secret ballot) for examination, and you will get a
complete and definite picture of the proletarian position on the land
question. The right of the landlords to land is denied. The method of the reform
is clearly defined—local committees, which means the domination of
peasant interests over those of the landlords. Alienation without compensation
means the full defence of the interests of the peasants, and an implacable,
struggle against the class avarice of the landlords.

Nowlet us turn to the Trudoviks. Karavayev did not put forward with full
clarity and definiteness the principle of “alienation without
compensation”. The representative of the peasants was less determined in
presenting the people’s demands to the landlords than was the
representative of the workers. The demand to hand the question over to local
committees was not put clearly; no protest was made against the scheme of the
liberals (the Cadets) to relegate the discussion on this acute question to a
commission, so as to keep it farther away from the people, farther from the
light of publicity, farther from free criticism. Despite all these shortcomings
in the Trudovik’s speech, as compared with that of the Social-Democrat, we
have to admit that the Trudovik defended the cause of the peasants against the
landlords. The Trudovik opened the eyes of the people to the miserable condition
of the peasantry. He disputed the arguments put forward by Yermolov and other
defenders of the landlord class, who tried to deny the need to extend peasant
holdings. He defined the minimum needs of the peasantry at 70,000,000
dessiatines of land, and explained that there are more than 70,000,000
dessiatines of landlord, crown and other lands available to meet the needs of
the peasants. The tenor of the Trudovik speech was—we repeat, despite the
shortcomings we have stressed—an appeal to the people, an effort to open
the eyes of the people....

Letus take Cadet Kutler’s speech. An entirely different picture
immediately unfolds before us. We feel that we have moved from the camp of the
fully consistent (Social-Democrat) or somewhat vacillating (Trudovik) defenders
of the peasants against the landlords, into the camp of the
landlords, who realise the inevitability of “concessions” but
are bending every effort to make the concessions as small as possible.

Kutlerspoke of his “agreement” with the Trudoviks, of his
“sympathy” for the Trudoviks, only to sugar the pill of
immediate curtailments, cuts, abridgements, which, he says, must be
made in the Trudoviks’ draft Kutler’s speech was, indeed, full of
arguments against the Social-Democrats and against the Trudoviks.

Introduction.A curtsey to the Trudoviks. The Cadet agrees with the basic idea,
he warmly sympathises, but...but ... the draft of the
Trudovik
Group “is not confined to the simple and obvious aim of
alleviating peasant land-hunger. It goes farther, it attempts
to re-create radically all existing land-law relations” (all
quotations from the report in Tovarishch).

Andso we get “sympathy” for the muzhik in word,
curtailment of the muzhik’s demands in deed. The word is for
the muzhik, the deed for the landlord.

Andon top of this, Kutler assures the Duma that the Trudovik does not confine
himself to a simple and obvious aim! Think of it, reader: the Trudovik
speaks forthrightly of 70,000,000 dessiatines of land. They have to be
transferred from the landlords to the peasants. And that is not
“simple”, that is not “obvious”!!

For“clarity” you have to speak about the labour standard. about the
subsistence standard, about the allotment standard of 1861. And Mr. Kutler
talks and talks and talks. He fills his listeners’ heads with a spate of words
on all those worthless questions in order to draw the conclusion: “in my
opinion ... there are 30,000,000 dessiatines lacking” to bring the peasant
allotments up to the 1861 standard, and that standard is still below the
subsistence standard. That is all. That is all he has to say on the extent of
the need, and its satisfaction.

Butis this an answer to the 70,000,000 dessiatines? You are simply
prevaricating, worthy knight of “the people’s freedom”, and
telling us old wives’ tales! Should 70,000,000 dessiatines of land go to the
peasants, or not? Yes or no?

And,to disclose the nature of these evasions still more clearly, we shall add
to the Trudovik’s reference the summarised figures of the
latest land statistics. Investigations undertaken in 1905 show a total
of 101,700,000 dessiatines of land in private hands. Of these, 15,800,000 belong
to various associations; 3,200,000 dessiatines belong to owners of plots not
bigger than 20 dessiatines; 3,300,000 dessiatines belong to owners of plots
between 20 and 50 dessiatines; 79,400,000 dessiatines belong to owners
of more than 50 dessiatines each. These latter number altogether
133,898. The average area belonging to each of them, therefore, is
594 dessiatines. Suppose ,we were to leave each of these gentlemen 50
dessiatines. That would make 6,909,000 dessiatines. Deduct 6,900,000 from
79,400,000 dessiatines and we get 72,600,000 dessiatines of available
landlords’ land, to say nothing of crown, state, church, monastery and other
lands.

Wesee that the Trudovik still did not correctly define the amount of land that
the peasantry could and should receive, although his figure of 70,000,000
dessiatines was close to the truth.

Soplease take the trouble to give a simple and clear answer, my Cadet
gentlemen: should 70,000,000 dessiatines of land be transferred from
the landlords to the peasants? Yes or no?

Insteadof giving a direct answer, the former minister and present liberal
hypocrite wriggles like the devil at mass, and exclaims pathetically:

“Isnot that right [the right to land according to the Trudovik draft] a
right to enter premises in which all the places are occupied?”

Verynice, isn’t it? The question of the 70,000,000 dessiatines
is bypassed. The liberal gentleman answers the peas ants—the premises
are occupied.

Havingdealt summarily with the unpleasant question of the 70,000,000
dessiatines (ignorant fellows, those muzhiks! bothering us with their
70,000,000), Kutler began to raise objection to the Trudoviks in respect of the
“practical feasibility” of land nationalisation.

Allthat is merely malicious tittle-tattle, because if the 70,000,000
dessiatines are left to the landlords there will be nothing to
nationalise! But Mr. Kutler speaks only to conceal his thoughts.

Whatis the nature of his objection to the nationalisation of the land?

“Itseems to me that it may be possible
to imagine the political conditions under which the land nationalisation bill
might become law, but I cannot imagine there being, in the near
future, political conditions under which such a law could actually be
implemented.”

Weightyand convincing. The liberal civil servant, who has been kowtowing all
his life, cannot imagine political conditions under which legislative
power would belong
to representatives of the people. It is usually the case— our dear liberal
is hinting—for power over the people to belong to a handful of
landlords.

Yes,that’s how it is. That’s how matters stand in Russia. We are,
however, talking about the struggle for people’s freedom. The question
under discussion is precisely that of how to change the economic and
“political conditions” of landlord rule. And you object by
making reference to power now being in the hands of the landlords, and by
stating that backs have to be bent lower:

“Itis groundless and unjust to complicate the simple and indisputably
valuable task of helping the peasant population

You’vegot to know your own limits!

AndMr. Kutler talks on and on, saying that instead of the
“unfeasible” nationalisation, all that is necessary is “to
extend peasant land tenure”.

Whenit was a question of the extension of peasant land
ownership (and not land tenure, sir!) by 70,000,000 dessiatines
of landlords’ land—then Kutler went over to the question
of “nationalisation”. And from the question of
nationalisation” he went back to that of “extension”...
It may happen, he thinks, that they won’t remember the 70,000,000
dessiatines !

Mr.Kutler is an out-and-out defender of private property in land. He declares
that its abolition would be “the greatest injustice”.

“Sincenobody proposes to abolish property in general, it is essential
that the existence of property in land be in every way recognised.”

Sincewe cannot take two steps forward this very day, then “it is
essential” to refuse to take a simple step forward! Such is the logic of
the liberal. Such is the logic of landlord avarice.

Itmight at first sight seem that the one point in Mr. Kutler’s speech
that. touched on the defence of peasant and not landlord interests was the
recognition of compulsory alienation of privately-owned land.

Butanyone who trusted the sound of those words would
be making a serious mistake. Compulsory alienation of the
landlords’ land would then and only then be of benefit to the peasants if
the landlords were compelled to hand over a great deal of land
to the peasants, and to hand it over cheaply. And what if
the landlords compel the peasants to pay dearly for miserable patches
of land?

Thewords “compulsory alienation” mean precisely nothing if there is
no actual guarantee that the landlords will not swindle the
peasants.

Notonly does Mr. Kutler fail to propose a single one of those
guarantees but, on the contrary, his whole speech, his whole Cadet position,
precludes them. The Cadets do not want action outside the Duma. They
frankly call for local committees with an undemocratic composition
—representatives from the peasants and landlords in equal numbers, with a
government chairman! That means nothing but the landlords coercing the peasants.

Addto this that the valuation of the land will be made by those same
landlord committees, that the Cadets are already today (see the end of
Kutler’s speech) foisting one half of the payment for
the land on the peasants (the peas ants will also pay the other half in
the form of increased taxation!) and you will see that the Cadets’ fine
words conceal foul deeds.

TheSocial-Democrats and the Trudoviks spoke in the Duma for the peasants, the
Rights and the Cadets for the landlords. That is a fact, and no evasions or fine
phrases will cover it up.